Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 31 2024

Consensual review

edit

File:Valence_-_Esplanade_du_Champs_de_Mars_-_Kiosque_Peynet_-_Depuis_la_terrasse_du_musée_d'Art_et_d'Archéologie.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Bandstand on a large square --Romainbehar 05:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Small tilt? --ArildV 12:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for me. --XtraJovial 04:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, tilted. --ArildV 10:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO tilt is too small to disqualify it for QI. --Plozessor 07:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment The walls are vertical on the left and right, bandstand is straight: the building in the background looks tilted because I took the photo from a corner of the square and not exact middle of the front side, where the I could climb on a building. Romainbehar 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support per Plozessor -- Екатерина Борисова 01:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 15:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Antigua_ciudad_de_Pompeya,_Italia,_2023-03-27,_DD_231-238_PAN.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Antigua ciudad de Pompeya, Italia, 2023-03-27 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 05:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose uneven sharpness --Georgfotoart 11:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support For this kind of image, the sharpness is good enough. Ziko 16:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I guess, this has to go to CR --Poco a poco 07:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good to me, couldn't spot any stitching errors or blurry frames. --Plozessor 07:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Bassd --PantheraLeo1359531 07:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 15:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Daepo_Jusangjeolli_Cliff_02.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Daepo Jusangjeolli Cliff, Jeju Island, South Korea --Bgag 02:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks great at thumb size, but unfortunately the main wave is burned out and lacks detail --Екатерина Борисова 12:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support There is still detail in the wave, but the subject is actually the cliff. --Plozessor 07:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Plozessor Jakubhal 00:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 15:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

File:The_shore_of_Arabian_sea_from_Cabo_de_Rama_Fort.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination The shore of Arabian sea from Cabo de Rama Fort--I.Mahesh 00:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Tagooty 02:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is not QI. The bad crop with plants in front, bleached, red halo over plants. --Nino Verde 08:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose poor processing --Georgfotoart 11:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Multiple issues, with halos around rocks (from too low blue threshold in CA removal) the most prominent one. --Plozessor 11:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Nino Verde: @Georgfotoart: , @Plozessor: , please review the image now. I have corrected the CA and crop, thanks. --I.Mahesh 15:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment   Not done significantly better, but the center of the image is still blurred --Georgfotoart (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
    •   Comment A bit better, but. Image looks bleached, very harsh light, overexposed. Maybe there is good reason to make it QI, but even after fixing some errors with exposure it will not be QI from my point of view. Probably, i'm wrong. --Nino Verde (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Acceptable now. --Plozessor 07:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 15:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Cathédrale_Notre-Dame_-_intérieur_-_vitraux_(Chartres).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Stained glass windows of the Notre-Dame de Chartres Cathedral (Eure-et-Loir). --Gzen92 05:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 05:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Level of detail is too low here. --Augustgeyler 21:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective somewhat overcorrected. Depending on the lighting conditions, architectural details can sometimes be deceptive, but the cables from which the lights are suspended should actually follow gravity and hang vertically. --Smial 14:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Perspective correction corrected Gzen92 10:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Thx, looks better, now   Support --Smial 11:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The sharpness in the upper part is not the best but enough in my opinion. -- Spurzem 17:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good. --Plozessor 04:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Given the standard of glass windows normally seen as QI, I agree that the detail level here is not high enough.--Peulle 12:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 16:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 13:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Seattle,_WA_(August_2024)_-_79.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: Drip Drip Coffeehouse, Seattle --Another Believer 04:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality --Llez 05:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is   Overprocessed and lost most texture and detail. --Augustgeyler 21:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Hm, I think the judgment is a bit too harsh, this is a typical "good enough" photo for me, where the Apple optimizations (denoising, contrast manipulation, sharpening) don't interfere too much. --Smial 14:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Well, I think there is a reason why we call this process here Quality Image but not Good Enough Image. --Augustgeyler 15:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I like to use "good enough" here on QIC as a synonym (or abbreviation) for "has no obvious defects and overall decent quality at a usual, normal viewing distance, for example an A4-sized print that you don't forensically examine at nose-to-nose distance". --Smial 16:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technically it's "good enough for QIC" but it's clearly tilted (right side is fine but left side is heavily leaning out). --Plozessor 04:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 13:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Airbus_H120,_AERO_2018,_Friedrichshafen_(1X7A4392).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Eurocopter EC-120 B at AERO Friedrichshafen 2018 --MB-one 03:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support A tight crop, but good quality. --Mike Peel 16:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too tight crop. --Augustgeyler 23:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Indicivise. Sharp and in general recognizable object. The crop is tight, but most of the object is in the image. The background though is a little bit distracting, also because of the people. Ziko 16:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Smial 15:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 13:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)